“Is
there anything more shameful than the man who lacks the courage to be
a coward?” - Peter Blaunder

Many
Americans had never heard the term 'standing' as it applies to our legal
system until the first eligibility cases were filed against the criminal
impostor in the White House, Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama.

The
first of those cases filed by Leo Donofrio in New Jersey went all the
way to the U.S. Supreme Court. His case was not rejected because of
'standing' in New Jersey. It was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court because
they're gutless cowards. If you think most of them don't understand
the issue of what constitutes a 'natural born citizen', I submit to
you they absolutely do. This is what happened in Leo's case:

"Justice
Clarence Thomas picked up the petition to hear New Jersey attorney Leo
Donofrio’s lawsuit after it was denied by Justice David H. Souter.
Justice Thomas referred it to the full court, which decided to distribute
the case for the judges’ conference. "The decision to put
the case on Fridays docket resulted from more than a dozen lawsuits
challenging Mr. Obama’s right to be president based on his citizenship
at birth. The issue preoccupied many conservative bloggers in the weeks
before the Nov. 4 election.

"Some
legal analysts say the lawsuits have little chance of success. The Supreme
Court rarely grants the kind of court orders - or stays - sought by
Mr. Donofrio. “Nothing in what we've seen from the court so far
suggests any likelihood the court is actually going to take the cases,”
said Eugene Volokh, constitutional law professor at the University of
California at Los Angeles School of Law. Nevertheless, for the lawsuit
even to make it to the docket raises the possibility of an unprecedented
case going before the Supreme Court . At least four of the court's nine
judges must approve before the case is heard."

Of
course, the "high" court did not hear the case. In his own
words, Clarence Thomas let the world know how they ducked their responsibility:
"We're
evading that one,” answered Thomas, referring to questions
of presidential eligibility. He and those at that committee hearing
all laughed like the subject matter was some big joke. The 800 pound
gorilla standing in the room and everyone damn well knew it was the
issue of constitutional elibility and the fraud in the White House.

Like
Soetoro/Obama, Cruz believes he can get away with it by making jokes.
What's so sickening is he made the comment on the day he was renouncing
his Canadian citizenship thereby acknowledging he was born with dual
citizenship making him ineligible to be president of these united States
of America. Cruz is not stupid. Since Soetoro/Obama has gotten away
with it while the Republican Party remained mute, so can he.

As
to the standing issue, I believe Dr Edwin Vieira summed
it up back in October 2008 regarding the galactic poop storm swirling
around the gangster from Chicago who committed fraud to get on the ballot:

"The
judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually
proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,”
but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing”
to challenge Obama’s eligibility:

regardless
of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to
establish the existence of an injury in fact. *** [A] candidate's ineligibility
under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in
fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced
by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible
candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

"This
pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

"First,
the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend
to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution”
(Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es]
under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical
constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a
constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for
whether a litigant's claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[
]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant
with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing”
may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere
in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,”
as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision,
to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost
entirely a judicial invention.

"True
enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as
the judiciary's so-called “compelling governmental interest test,”
which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional
rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those
officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which
is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing”
as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole
cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s]
or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI,
Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution's explicit limitation
on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1).

"For
the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[
].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely
a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be
changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty.
And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance,
inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America's constitutional form
of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the
purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding
his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate
the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render
impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).

"Second,
the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely,
that Berg's “grievance remains too generalized to establish the
existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured
or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is
absurd on its face.

"To
be sure, no one has yet voted for Obama in the general election. But
does that mean that no one in any group smaller than the general pool
of America's voters in its entirety has suffered specific harm from
Obama’s participation in the electoral process to date? Or will
suffer such harm from his continuing participation? What about the Democrats
who voted for Hillary Clinton as their party's nominee, but were saddled
with Obama because other Democrats voted for him even though they could
not legally have done so if his lack of eligibility for “the Office
of President” had been judicially determined before the Democratic
primaries or convention?

"What
about the States that have registered Obama as a legitimate candidate
for President, but will have been deceived, perhaps even defrauded,
if he is proven not to be “a natural born Citizen”? And
as far as the general election is concerned, what about the voters among
erstwhile Republicans and Independents who do not want John McCain as
President, and therefore will vote for Obama (or any Democrat, for that
matter) as “the lesser of two evils,” but who later on may
have their votes effectively thrown out, and may have to suffer McCain’s
being declared the winner of the election, if Obama’s ineligibility
is established? Or what about those voters who made monetary contributions
to Obama’s campaign, but may at length discover that their funds
went, not only to an ineligible candidate, but to one who knew he was
ineligible?"

I
bring this up because 'standing' continues to be the vehicle judges,
federal and state, use to dodge issues they don't want to deal with
- like my Seventeenth Amendment lawsuit which is now in the appeals
court in Austin, Texas. [I will have an up date on my case soon.]

"An
appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s
lawsuit against the Obama administration over his amnesty-by-executive-order
plan because the District of Columbia Court of Appeals determined he
didn't have “standing” to bring a complaint. That is, he
couldn't identify a specific and personal injury that he would suffer
because of the amnesty.

"But
one judge said it's time for changes. “Today we hold that the
elected sheriff of the nation's fourth largest county, located mere
miles from our border with Mexico, cannot challenge the federal government's
deliberate non-enforcement of the immigration laws,” wrote Judge
Janice Rogers Brown.

"She
said while precedent requires the appeals court to uphold the dismissal
of the case, “I write separately to … note the consequences
of our modern obsession with a myopic and constrained notion of standing.”
"She explained “what the government views as permissible
prosecutorial discretion, Sheriff Arpaio views as a violation of the
president's duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’
… and the non-delegation doctrine.”

"His
concerns, Brown wrote, “run deeper than a difference in philosophy
or politics. He claims [Obama's amnesty] impose clear and ‘severe’
harms on his ability to protect the people of Maricopa county. In particular,
he argues that deferring removal proceedings and providing work authorizations
to undocumented immigrants ‘harmed … his office's finances,
workload and interfered with the conduct of his duties…’”

"Brown
said it's logical for the sheriff to believe he has a case. But Brown
wrote that the case had to be dismissed because of precedent, even though
“the relevant judicial guideposts do not exactly ‘define
standing ‘with complete consistency.” “And some cases
suggest standing can be satisfied based on fairly ephemeral injuries
and attenuated theories of causation.”

After
a little more legalese, Judge Brown went on:

“Of
course, the link may be no more attenuated than that connecting a potential
twenty-centimeter rise in sea level with greenhouse gas emissions from
new vehicles.” She concluded, “Today's holding puts the
consequences of our standing jurisprudence in stark relief. If an elected
sheriff responsible for the security of a county with a population larger
than 21 states cannot bring suit, individual litigants will find it
even more difficult to bring similar challenges.”

"She
pointed out that the opinion only concludes that “general conditions”
do not support a lawsuit. “Our decision holds only that Sheriff
Arpaio lacks standing … not that [amnesty] programs are categorically
shielded from suit,” she wrote. And, she said, “Today's
decision does not take issue with the claim that unlawful immigration
carries consequences.” Our jurisprudence on standing has many
shortcomings,” she said."

And
it's long past time to get rid of it or make it fair instead of a tool
for cowardly judges. I fully understand the problem with drowning courts
in lawsuits that are absurd, silly or for a vendetta. But, along the
way, as is so clear from Edwin's application regarding eligibility to
Sheriff Arpaio's very legitimate lawsuit, 'standing' is just a tool
to get rid of any hot potato issue a court doesn't want to address -
too many times out of loyalty to the party [president] who nominated
them.

In
the case of Judge Brown, it's refreshing to see a federal judge in this
country actually take on a very serious issue. But, then again, Judge
Brown is quite well known in judicial circles. She sat on the California
Supreme Court. She was nominated to the federal bench by George W. Bush
to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
regarded as probably the second highest court in the land. Democratic/Communist
Party USA members of Congress went ballistic; Judge Brown became the
target of useful fools who call themselves progressives.

"Later,
Reid added that “we put on that court some of the most extreme
right wing people you could find. Janice Rogers Brown thinks there's
a Communist behind every bush even now.” That's a little harsh,
even compared to scare quotes from the Think Progress blog, which recently
lamented:

"Brown
labeled the New Deal a “socialist revolution,” and she likened
Social Security to a kind of intergenerational cannibalism — “[t]oday’s
senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they
have a right to get as much ‘free’ stuff as the political
system will permit them to extract.” Since joining the federal
bench, she authored a concurring opinion suggesting that all labor,
business or Wall Street regulation is constitutionally suspect. The
very first sentence of her birth control opinion labels the Affordable
Care Act a “behemoth.”

If
Dirty Harry Reid was against her nomination, she must be right for the
job. The fraud in the White House also slammed her back in 2005: "Justice
Brown has also gone out of her way to use her position in the courts
to advocate for increased protections for property owners." Spoken
like the true Marxist he's always been.

"The
great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body, like gravity,
ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground
step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the
special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them." --Thomas
Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821. ME 15:326

What
can be done?

The
U.S. House Committee on the federal judiciary has "...jurisdiction
over matters relating to the administration of justice in federal courts,
administrative bodies, and law enforcement agencies. Its infrequent
but important role in impeachment proceedings has also brought it much
attention." At the state level say here in Texas, the House has
a Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence committee. Those committees make
the rules that get voted on by their full body.

If
enough people - like maybe a hundred thousand or so lawyers in this
country, a few thousand retired federal, state and lower court judges
and many Americans demand they get rid of standing. That judicial invention
has been a tool of tyrants that deny a private citizen like me from
moving forward with a very important lawsuit (non-ratification of a
constitutional amendment) [my case is on appeal] or in the case of illegal
aliens, a duly elected sheriff trying to stop the human invasion wreaking
havoc on his county and the rest of the country.

One
individual who has worked tirelessly to expose corruption in the courts
and cleaning up the mess is Dr. Richard Cordero who heads up The
Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc. It's a movement that needs
to grow because judges across this country screw Americans every day
of the week in decisions that ruin lives and livelihoods. They make
decisions that affect generations that are purely agenda driven stripping
Americans of their God-given rights and shredding the Bill of Rights.

Corrupt
judges are seldom if ever held accountable for their crimes against
the Constitution and we the people. Why? Because the American people
pay little to no attention to our federal and state courts - until the
system bites them. One of the most important branches of government
that affects everyone is allowed to run amok by cowards in the U.S.
Congress and state capitols. When deplorable decisions come down, they
all wring their hands and cry politics instead of removing bad judges.

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email Alerts

Email Address *

First Name

*required
field

Attorneys,
retired judges, current members of state legislatures and the U.S. Congress
(yeah, I know that one's a long short) need to become involved with
Dr. Cordero's efforts as well as Americans who want to see the court's
cleaned up and bad judges held accountable. One
of his publications is here; a huge undertaking. Dr. Cordero sends
out regular emails about on-going plans that will bear fruit if people
get involved.

A
short bio: Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., Ph.D., University of Cambridge,
England, M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School, D.E.A., La
Sorbonne, Paris, Judicial Discipline Reform, New York City. I had the
privilege of interviewing Dr. Cordero on the radio. A true gentleman;
I learned quite a bit from the interview and his postings and emails.
You can reach Dr. Cordero by email: [email protected]

[Just
a short note about 9/11. The cost of America's undeclared
"war" (invasion) in Afghanistan has now reached $1 trillion
borrowed dollars - massive debt heaped on us all based on what happened
on 9/11. Regular readers of my column know I continue to press for the
truth about the events of 9/11. Military grade nanothermite is not a
conspiracy theory. It was found and tested from the rubble at the twin
towers. A new, powerful film has been released: The
Anatomy of a Great Deception. For full disclosure I receive no compensation,
but I want you to get a copy (or a few) and share it with others or
give a copy as a present. I've purchased half a dozen copies and given
them to individuals I believe seek the truth. It's very powerful simply
because it's one 'ordinary' man's story who ask a simple question that
led him to a not so simple journey. There is factual information in
this film that many have never heard about but everyone should.
Just a suggestion, order more than one and give one to a friend.]

[
Please,
must see video on the dangers of Smart Meeters on your home, titled:
Take
Back Your Power.]

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets,
Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy
appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican
Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy
isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who
believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.
Devvy is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.

Devvy's regularly posted new columns
are on her site at: www.devvy.com. You can also sign
up for her free email alerts.

Corrupt judges
are seldom if ever held accountable for their crimes against the Constitution
and we the people. Why? Because the American people pay little to no
attention to our federal and state courts - until the system bites them.